Monday, 3 November 2014

Politicians don't know how to re-connect

Janet Daley sums-up the position well in this morning's Telegraph; the world over, professional politicians have lost contact with voters. They know this - and would give anything to gain advantage by being able to re-connect to the voters now flocking to the anti-politics parties, but they simply don't know how to do it. And they don't know how to do it because they are trying to find a campaigning technique rather than trying to find voters' concerns. Like abusers trapped in a cycle of self-destruction, everything they do just makes things worse, drags them further down that terminal spiral. Unless something changes radically, it can only end when the present political class shatters into a million shards of mendacity. And on that cheerful note I must apologise in advance for any hiatus in posting for the next few days.

It is impossible for them to connect with the proles.They are selected on their ability to lie and avoid giving a straight answer as to do so would have them vilified by the media at some later date.The only way to get honesty is to stop paying them centrally. If MP's were paid by their constituents things would change PDQ.That isn't ever going to happen either as long as people keep voting red/blue/yellow.

I think Ms Daley is deluding herself if she thinks there is any leaning towards libertarianism among voters.

Whenever they're asked they seem to prefer the big state, intrusive nannying and a rejection of free speech and personal responsibility.

The problem is that we are sufficiently rich and reasonably free (despite the lst 20 years) that people think they can get away without thinking about politics. As a result few people worry about threats to free speech, the rising tax take, the increasingly intrusive behaviour into every aspect of our lives - stuff which drives me mental but makes me look like a swivel eyed loon to the average bloke.

In debates about the House of Lords reform, Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour and staunch EU opponent) asked what extra powers the upper house should have, if it acquired a democratic mandate. The answer was that nothing of that sort was envisaged.

But the British system has been unbalanced since the Parliam ent Act of 1911 took away the Lords' ability to vote down a government finance Bill.

In Australia the Labour government of Gough Whitlam ran out of money because the elected Senate (with more or less the pre 1911 powers of the Lords) refuse to vote supply. Whitlam tried to keep going by printing IOUs.

The Governor General used the royal prerogative to dissolve both houses and call a general election. Whitlam went into a sulk,claiming this was Cavaliers v Roundheads etc, and rfused to act as caretaker prime minister until after the election. So the Governor General appointed the leader of the opposition as "The Queen's government must be carried on".

Now wouldn't it be nice if we had that sort of balance of power and the Crown with a positive duty to intervene when the government acts contrary to the constitution?

But, of course, Australia has a codified constitution so the situation was clear enough.

Their mindset is quite predictable. En-masse, our political class has bought into a corporatist/world-goverment mind-set that clamps down ruthlessly on independent thought. Modern politicians know that their own influence is now extremely limited, but the trappings of office make the job worthwhile. All they expect from us is a bit of fawning respect and understanding...

I was thinking more of the American Constitution, but thank you for your comment and explanation about the Australian system.

Whatever they propose for the Lords, IF it involves Party Political candidates (which it will) it is going to result in an elected dictatorship with nothing to stop a PM (who isn't directly elected) from pushing anything through Parliament that he/she (and the EU) wants.

Hello Dee Dee,I haven't the details to hand but the Australian system also involves "states' rights" as Australia, like America, is a federation. People in America with similar views to our own have much the same complaints about the corrupt duopoly of the party system. In spite of the constitution being entrenched against modification by mere statute, the relentless growth of the power of the federal government has obliterated many of the checks and balances, devised by the founding fathers. The a Supreme Court itself, not bound by its own precedents, has also become politicised .

If you a google Edward Spalton, you will find an article of mine " On a Democracy" which is still around from a few years ago. It doesn't really offer any solutions but it does discuss some of the problems.

From a posting of mine on another, similar discussion:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The "Today" programme, talikng about the Rochester bye-election.It could almost have been Scotland ... "the politicians don't lsiten, they are remote ( In the Westminster bubble, all of 34 miles away ), they don't care ..." etc.All the familiar themes.The Ruling Party are becoming uneasy, but they still haven't a clue, have thay?Like the two politicains at $_NAME's group-discussion @ $_Convention ... the Lem-o-Crat fought her corner valiantly, but failed to see that she was part of the problem, & the Green (after the main discussion - we ran out of time) took all criticisms of her party's policies as a personal attack & refused to engage in discussion.Pathetic, the lot of them.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^And they still refuse to get it ....